The main legal point established in the judgment is that adhoc service cannot be counted for seniority if the appointment was not in accordance with the rules, and the impact of delay and laches in claiming seniority benefits.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill. J. - This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4429, 13254, 8891 of 2020 and 14925 of 2019. Petitioners in all these writ petitions seek benefit of adhoc service rendered by them towards seniority with all consequential/monetary benefits. Petitioners also seek refixation of their seniority and revision of seniority list accordingly. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on decision of a coordinate Bench in Dr. Surindra Kumar Mishra and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(1) SCT 428, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.886 of 2011 vide decision dated 13.10.2011. Civil Appeal Nos.4420-4424 of 2016 as well as review and curative petitions filed by the State challenging the said decisions have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. Facts in each of the abovementioned writ petitions as are relevant for adjudication of the controversy are briefly narrated as hereunder:-

3. CWP No.4429 of 2020, Virendra Singh Malhan and others v. State of Haryana and others was initially filed by ten (10) petitioners while pleading that all the said petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Government Colleges in the State of Haryana by way of selection qua duly sanctioned posts.Petitioners, it is stated, were initially appointed on adhoc basis through proper and due process of selection after issuance of public notice and advertisement as per applicable statutory service rules. All the ten (10) petitioners except petitioners No.7 and 9 are stated to have joined on adhoc basis between the years 1980 and December, 1986. Petitioners No.7 and 9 were appointed on 25.01.1994 and 27.12.1993, respectively. Services of all the ten (10) petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 31.12.1990 except petitioners No.4, 7, 9 and 10 whose services were regularized in the years 1986, 2000, 1997 and 1989, respectively. Petitioners thus claimed that their adhoc service should be counted towards seniority alongwith all other consequential benefits on the basis of judgment of this Court in Dr. Surindra Kumar Mishra (supra), which had attained finality. Respondents, keeping in view the judicial pronouncements, filed reply wherein benefit of adhoc service to petitioners No.l to 6, 8 and 10 was conceded.

4. CWP No.4429 of 2020 was accordingly disposed of qua petitioners No.l to 6, 8 and 10 vide order dated 22.09.2020 with a direction to the respondents that the said petitioners be granted the benefit in the same terms as in Dr. Surindra Kumar Mishra (supra) in view of the stand taken by the State. Therefore, CWP No.4429 of 2020 survives qua claim of petitioners No.7 and 9. Petitioners No. 11 to 14 were later impleaded vide various applications filed in the writ petition.

5. Claim of petitioners No.7, 9 and 11 to 14 is resisted by the State. It is pleaded that benefit of adhoc service towards seniority was allowed only to those petitioners, who were appointed on adhoc basis prior to 1986 with their services governed under the Punjab Educational Services Rules, 1934 (for short, 1934 Rules) and the Punjab Subordinate Educational Service Rules, 1937 (forshort, 1937 Rules'). In respect to those petitioners appointed after coming into force of the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986 (for short, 1986 Rules'), it is pleaded that appointment under the 1986 Rules is to be made by the Government on recommendations of the Commission, which was not the requirement under the 1937 Rules. It is pleaded that the abovesaid petitioners were selected and appointed purely on adhoc basis on recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee as a stop gap arrangement. In respect to petitioners No.7, 12 and 13, it is stated that their services were regularized under the State Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 w.e.f. 31.01.1996 and petitioners No.9, 11 and 14 though initially appointed on adhoc basis, were subsequently recruited through direct recruitment vide orders dated 24.10.1997 and 31.03.2003 attached as Annexur